26 Reply by Sander D.

(72 replies, posted in General discussion)

Cool, that 'Your browser sucks' thing in IE! Can I copy it? :-)

But the mod_rewrite thing doesn't seem to work. I keep getting 404 errors.

Go to forum: General discussion

27 Reply by Sander D.

(7 replies, posted in Feature requests)

Great. I could help, if you want.

Go to forum: Feature requests

28 Reply by Sander D.

(200 replies, posted in General discussion)

You can mail me (sander.dijkhuis@gmail.com) too for an invite.

Go to forum: General discussion

29 Reply by Sander D.

(4 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 bug reports)

Hm, I do like the option to read new messages in my e-mail. But when you strip the BBCode, people would miss some things like images. Maybe it is an idea to change [ img]http://example.com/image[/img ] just to http://example.com/image, so that you can go to that URI?

I'd like an option to get new e-mails for every new message in a topic too, so that I can follow a discussion without having to go to the topic page after every message.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 bug reports

30 Topic by Sander D.

(4 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 bug reports)

When I get an e-mail with a new post from a topic I'm subscribed to, I see BBCodes in that mail. Wouldn't it be an idea to remove them, or parse them in an HTML version (which would be unnecassary in my opinion)?

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 bug reports

31 Reply by Sander D.

(4 replies, posted in Programming)

.home_leftcol {
    width: 140px;
    position: absolute;
    left: 0;
    top: 0;
}
.home_middlecol {
    margin: 0 140px;
}
.home_rightcol {
    width: 140px;
    position: absolute;
    right: 0;
    top: 0;
}

Go to forum: Programming

32 Reply by Sander D.

(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Rickard wrote:

Staying with HTML would have severely hurt PunBB's possibilities of getting adopted by the web development community. Being XHTML compliant does not add any measurable overhead. A few bytes here and there really doesn't add up to much in  the greater scheme of things.

Okay, okay, I agree. And of course I'll stay with PunBB. smile

analogue wrote:

Oh my god, you are an idiot aren't you ?

Wow, you're the second one who calls me something like that!

analogue wrote:

I can't serve it as application/xhtml+xml simply because IE will try to download it instead of parsing it.

So you should use XHTML 1.0, because that's the only backwards-compatible XHTML version. See XHTML Media Types if you don't believe me. For web sites like yours, there only are disadvantages of XHTML 1.1.

analogue wrote:

And as you are at personnal websites, what about yours ? (...) It might be syntaxically correct but...

But what? HTML is based upon SGML, which can handle tags that aren't closed, unlike XML (which is based upon SGML too). Starting with a new <p> tag will cause the previous one to 'end'. And you don't need tags like <html>, <head> or <body>, because it's clear where the HTML code starts and where the BODY starts. Omitting those tags doesn't mean ommiting the elements HTML and BODY; see my CSS. See the Index of HTML 4 Elements. So that's what I like about HTML smile (Though I am not trying to tell you what to use. If you think XHTML is better for you, just use it.)

Rickard wrote:

Relax people.

I agree again. I was only trying to discuss the use of (X)HTML at PunBB (which isn't neccassary for me now anymore), and trying out PunBB 1.2 smile

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

33 Reply by Sander D.

(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Connorhd wrote:

so whats the advantages of HTML? a couple of bytes?

Probably. What are the advantages of XHTML 1.0?

edduddiee wrote:

it is not worth it as you are a closed minded fool

Thank you!

edduddiee wrote:

If you really care that much about trying to get people the change back to using html.

No, I'm trying to discuss it. People shouldn't just do something because they've heard that XHTML is the successor to HTML (which is not true), without thinking about it theirselves. I think that's a bit narrow-minded.

edduddiee wrote:

Go throught the source for punBB and change it so that is html and relase it as a html alternatiive.

I thought about doing that, but I think it isn't worth it.

Don't know if you've read it by the way, but I have written that I agree with Rickard about using XHTML for PunBB.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

34 Reply by Sander D.

(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

analogue wrote:

The choice is so obvious there is no need for any proof nor explanation.

And it's obvious too that you serve XHTML 1.1 as text/html at your site? Please, if you don't even know what you're talking about, don't tell me that it's "so obvious" to use XHTML instead of HTML.

Rickard wrote:

This particular forum is special because I want to show PunBB the way it looks when you install it.

I don't fully understand what you mean smile

SaDiKe wrote:

When used correctly, XHTML is lighter than HTML.

It's suggested to not use table anymore with XHTML for the global display of your site. You should use <div> for blocks(like a cell with HTML), lists(<ul> and <li>) for menus, the headers(h1, h2, h3...) for title and so on...

Like I've written before a few times, you can as well use divs instead of tables for layout in HTML. For HTML, people suggested that too. XHTML 1.0 really is no more than an XML version of HTML. The rest is the same.

SaDiKe wrote:

but when we know all its advantages, XHTML is better.

There are no practical advantages of XHTML 1.0 yet for a forum that doesn't work with XML. But I've written that before too...

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

35 Reply by Sander D.

(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Rickard: I didn't know many people were doing it that way. Well, then I guess you're right.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

36 Reply by Sander D.

(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

edduddiee wrote:
Anne Van Kesteren wrote:

Although for some people XHTML 1.1 seems a bit stricter because it doesn't allow the NAME attribute to be used as fragment identifier reference anymore it is actually more limiting. As it, for example, does not support the ID attribute on the HTML element, which can be useful in some projects. (Browsers do support it; the DTD just does not allow it.)

Anne talks allot about the subject. His site is a good read.

You're quoting the wrong text; this is about XHTML 1.1. You'd better read The future of HTML (HTML isn't dead! The WHATWG is still working on a new version, which will probably be very useful for a forum system!). Or read what Mozilla writes about it:

Serving valid HTML 4.01 as text/html ensures the widest browser and search engine support.

edduddiee wrote:

A place for xhtml: (...) A site that will not exceed its maximum bandwidth (or doesn't care) so can have slightly larger pages.

Well, PunBB should be as small as possible (but use HTML correctly), in my opinion. If I wanted to have larger pages, I'd use phpBB, which will use XHTML 1.0 too.

edduddiee wrote:

html allows lose invalid markup.

That doesn't mean that PunBB would use invalid markup.

mindlessoath wrote:

(...) xhtml is more of a standard you should follow, meaning things have to be coded correctly, meaning they should show up correctly every time and a browser only has to render it one way instead of making up for mistakes, much like IE does to websites

Very few browsers support XHTML. Most browsers just think it's invalid HTML (with strange slashes in the <br>-tag etc.), and handle it the same way as it would handle HTML. Every web browser supports HTML. Not using optional tags like </p> won't cause browsers to render the page the wrong way.

Rod wrote:

see http://www.csszengarden.com and you understand for webdesigners like me XHTML is future.

I already wrote that CSS doesn't handle XHTML differently than HTML. CSS Zen Garden is only about CSS and valid used HTML.

Rod wrote:

But continue with tables if you want : if you want big great HTML code, use PHPBB, simply.

I wasn't talking about using tables! I like it that PunBB is using HTML more correctly now. XHTML only is an XML version of HTML; the tags are the same, but you should code it like XML (so every tag has to be closed).

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

37 Reply by Sander D.

(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Rickard wrote:

One advantage of using XHTML is website integration. You'll have a hard time finding modern websites using anything but XHTML and if the forums were then HTML, you'd have a problem.

What would be the problem? You can easily have an HTML forum with an XHTML site.

Rickard wrote:

BTW. PunBB uses JavaScript in many ways. Autofocus of form elements, form validation, some redirects in the admin interface etc.

But those scripts wouldn't have to be changed for HTML. The DOM is the same.

hcgtv wrote:

I welcome (...) the ease of customizing the look and feel of Pun.

Me too, but that has got nothing to do with XHTML.

hcgtv wrote:

By the way, shouldn't we have had this discussion months ago?

Some months ago, I was making my sites XHTML too. I've just found out that HTML was actually as good as XHTML, and I didn't want to slow down the release of PunBB 1.2 by starting such a discussion.

But maybe you're right. PunBB at least outputs valid code.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

38 Reply by Sander D.

(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

W3C wrote:

XHTML documents can be written to operate as well or better than they did before in existing HTML 4-conforming user agents as well as in new, XHTML 1.0 conforming user agents.

Well, the pages operate as well as HTML pages in all user agents, so there still are no advantages. They only are bigger.

W3C wrote:

XHTML documents can utilize applications (e.g. scripts and applets) that rely upon either the HTML Document Object Model or the XML Document Object Model [DOM].

PunBB isn't using any scripts or applets, and if you want to use JavaScript, it will support HTML pages as well as XHTML pages.

W3C wrote:

The XHTML family is the next step in the evolution of the Internet. By migrating to XHTML today, content developers can enter the XML world with all of its attendant benefits, while still remaining confident in their content's backward and future compatibility.

This is more something for static web pages, which take more time to change. When web browsers only support XHTML (which will never happen, or at least take many years), you could change the PHP scripts to output XHTML pages.

Paul wrote:

The difference in size is an illusion. Your XHTML file is fully indented and has white space between items and your HTML does not. Remove the indenting/whitespace and the size differenc is only 0.6k

You're right, I was removing some other unnecassary things too. But 0.6 kB still is something, and at bigger forums and other pages it will be more. Why should you make pages bigger than needed? I like the idea of having small, valid HTML pages.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

39 Reply by Sander D.

(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

trel1023 wrote:
Sander D. wrote:

PunBB isn't using XML, so you're not using the advantages of XHTML.

XHTML is a specification of a document type in XML. (...) So, yes, it does.

I still don't see any advantages of XML used. The posts aren't (and shouldn't be) stored in XML files or something like that.

trel1023 wrote:

the power of xhtml + css is well documented and really without argument these days.

There is no difference between XHTML and (valid) HTML for CSS.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

40 Topic by Sander D.

(38 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

The new version of PunBB is great, but why is it using XHTML? Here are some reasons not to use it:

? PunBB isn't using XML, so you're not using the advantages of XHTML.
? It needs more code. Compare an XHTML page to the smaller HTML page. The difference is more than 2 kilobytes, and that will be more on other pages. I thought you didn't want to have huge HTML pages?
? You aren't using it the right way; XHTML should have the MIME type "application/xhtml+xml" and now that's "text/html". But you shouldn't use "application/xhtml+xml" either, because some browsers don't accept it.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

41 Reply by Sander D.

(300 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Yes, you?re right. And then you can use the ?up? button to see the topic list. And maybe a link to the help page (<link rel="Help">). It would be nice to be able to switch CSS styles with those links too (a quick way to see what style you like), but maybe it?s better to do that with profiles, like now.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

42 Reply by Sander D.

(300 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

Maybe it?s nice to use <link>s in PunBB 1.2, so that you can press the ?next page? button in some browsers (like Mozilla and Opera) to view the next topic, or use the ?RSS? button in Firefox to subscribe to the RSS export of the forums.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

43 Reply by Sander D.

(277 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 discussion)

I know that not many people use Amaya, but you might try to fix the bug that causes strange problems with that browser. But maybe Amaya just doesn't support CSS well enough (remarkable, for a browser from the W3C).

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 discussion

44 Reply by Sander D.

(3 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 show off)

Thanks! And thanks for making PunBB of course, it?s really great.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 show off

45 Topic by Sander D.

(3 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 show off)

#25 at PunBBig: the McDuck.nl forum. It?s a Dutch message board about Donald Duck. I?ve started to customize it to the design of the rest of the site (also check the view topic-pages), but I think I?ll wait with finishing it untill PunBB 1.2 is released.

I?m using version 1.2 for Forum Omnibus by the way, but only because nobody visits it, so I don?t have to care about bugs there. I just wanted to try out the great new features. smile

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 show off

46 Reply by Sander D.

(200 replies, posted in General discussion)

Damn.

(I hate that blue bar with 'You have 6 Gamil invitations.'!)

Go to forum: General discussion

47 Reply by Sander D.

(200 replies, posted in General discussion)

Okay, anyone else who wants Gmail? Mail me.

Go to forum: General discussion

48 Reply by Sander D.

(200 replies, posted in General discussion)

Falconey wrote:

Has anyone of you gotten any spam on your gmail accounts? If so, did it get filtered?

Most of my spam is being filtered out to the Spam folder, but sometimes I'm getting 'new kinds of spam' in my inbox. You only have to press the 'Report Spam' button then, and it's moved to the Spam folder and probably being filtered out the next time.

Any PunBB developers who want an account (or is Rickard the only one)? Mail me.

Go to forum: General discussion

49 Reply by Sander D.

(37 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 modifications, plugins and integrations)

Small bug:

An error was encountered

File: /var/www/html/forum/install_wikids.php
Line: 194

PunBB reported: Unable to create table wikids_timeline.
Database reported: You have an error in your SQL syntax near 'ANUTO_INCREMENT NOT NULL, page_id INT(10) UNSIGNED DEFAULT NULL, post_id' at line 2 (Errno: 1064)

Think you should change 'ANUTO_INCREMENT' to 'AUTO_INCREMENT'.

Thanks for the script! Haven't used it yet, but it looks great.

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 modifications, plugins and integrations

50 Reply by Sander D.

(7 replies, posted in PunBB 1.2 modifications, plugins and integrations)

I think install_mod.php is old:

$mod_version    = '1.2.1';
$release_date   = '2003-10-01';

$punbb_versions    = array('1.1', '1.1.1');

Go to forum: PunBB 1.2 modifications, plugins and integrations